Published February 25, 2025 | Version v1

Comparing morphological and DNA-based bioassessment methodologies for macroinvertebrates in Neotropical streams: a case study from Ecuador

  • 1. Brigham Young University, Provo, United States of America|Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador
  • 2. Cornell University, Ithaca, United States of America|Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador|Brigham Young University, Provo, United States of America
  • 3. Brigham Young University, Provo, United States of America
  • 4. Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador

Description

As unimpacted freshwater environments decline worldwide, developing effective and accurate biomonitoring approaches is critical for detecting ecosystem deterioration and facilitating conservation efforts. Freshwater macroinvertebrate communities comprise several phyla and thus a broad taxonomic expertise is required to identify these precisely. Molecular approaches for characterizing invertebrate communities have the potential to be more accurate, time-effective, and thus less costly than traditional morphological methods. However, evaluations comparing the two methods for macroinvertebrates are lacking in the Neotropics, where rapid deployment and increased accuracy are critical due to the escalating deterioration of freshwater environments. In this study, we compared the performance of DNA bulk tissue metabarcoding using an eDNA primer pair (fwhF2 & EPTDr2n) and morphological methodologies for identifying macroinvertebrate communities. Our aim was to evaluate the suitability of metabarcoding for assessing the biological quality of Ecuadorian streams along an altitudinal gradient. We found low taxonomic overlap between methods at family and genus ranks, though many molecular OTUs were unclassified at family and genus levels. Morphological identification resulted in higher Andean-Amazonian Biotic Index (AAMBI) scores for each site, with only three sites classified into the same biological category for both methodologies. One reason is that only family-level information is used for AAMBI. Existing DNA barcode reference libraries contained incomplete coverage of Ecuadorian taxa for specimens determined with the morphological approach, indicating a need to improve the representation of Ecuadorian taxa in these libraries to generate more accurate and complete metabarcoding determinations. Our study suggests that metabarcoding requires more development for freshwater biomonitoring in the Neotropics and should, at the moment, be used complementary to traditional identification approaches.

Files

MBMG_article_138172.pdf

Files (845.2 kB)

Name Size
md5:0006070ce7514b4ad4522724c2bb9363
845.2 kB Preview Download

System files (166.4 kB)

Name Size
md5:4728dbab9ce793e0be5744274f3d2076
166.4 kB Download

Linked records

Additional details

References

  • Acosta R, Prat N (2010) Chironomid assemblages in high altitude streams of the Andean region of Peru. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 177: 57. https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-9135/2010/0177-0057
  • Acosta R, Ríos B, Rieradevall M, Prat N (2009) Propuesta de un protocolo de evaluación de la calidad ecológica de ríos andinos (CERA) y su aplicación a dos cuencas en Ecuador y Perú. Limnetica 28: 035–064. https://doi.org/10.23818/limn.28.04
  • Albert JS, Tagliacollo VA, Dagosta F (2020) Diversification of Neotropical freshwater fishes. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 51: 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-011620-031032
  • Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of molecular biology 215: 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
  • Andres KJ, Lodge DM, Andrés J (2023) Environmental DNA reveals the genetic diversity and population structure of an invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120: e2307345120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2307345120
  • Antonelli A (2022) The rise and fall of Neotropical biodiversity. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 199: 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/boab061
  • Aylagas E, Borja Á, Muxika I, Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N (2018) Adapting metabarcoding-based benthic biomonitoring into routine marine ecological status assessment networks. Ecological Indicators 95: 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.044
  • Azevedo-Santos VM, Arcifa MS, Brito MF, Agostinho AA, Hughes RM, Vitule JR, Simberloff D, Olden JD, Pelicice FM (2021) Negative impacts of mining on Neotropical freshwater fishes. Neotropical Ichthyology 19. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-2021-0001
  • Baptista DF, Buss DF, Egler M, Giovanelli A, Silveira MP, Nessimian JL (2007) A multimetric index based on benthic macroinvertebrates for evaluation of Atlantic Forest streams at Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 575: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0286-x
  • Blackman RC, Mächler E, Altermatt F, Arnold A, Beja P, Boets P, Egeter B, Elbrecht V, Filipe AF, Jones JI (2019) Advancing the use of molecular methods for routine freshwater macroinvertebrate biomonitoring – the need for calibration experiments. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 3: 49–57. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.3.34735
  • Bohmann K, Elbrecht V, Carøe C, Bista I, Leese F, Bunce M, Yu DW, Seymour M, Dumbrell AJ, Creer S (2022) Strategies for sample labelling and library preparation in DNA metabarcoding studies. Molecular Ecology Resources 22: 1231–1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13512
  • Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F (2019) Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nature biotechnology 37: 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9
  • Boothroyd I, Stark J (2000) Use of invertebrates in monitoring. New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management: 344–373.
  • Bradley DC, Ormerod SJ (2002) Evaluating the precision of kick-sampling in upland streams for assessments of long-term change: the effects of sampling effort, habitat and rarity. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 155: 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/155/2002/199
  • Brantschen J, Pellissier L, Walser J, Altermatt F (2022) Evaluation of primer pairs for eDNA‐based assessment of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera across a biogeographically diverse region. Environmental DNA 4: 1356–1368. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.342
  • Buchner D, Macher T-H, Beermann AJ, Werner M-T, Leese F (2021) Standardized high-throughput biomonitoring using DNA metabarcoding: Strategies for the adoption of automated liquid handlers. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology 8: 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2021.100122
  • Bukowski B, Ratnasingham S, Hanisch PE, Hebert PD, Perez K, DeWaard J, Tubaro PL, Lijtmaer DA (2022) DNA barcodes reveal striking arthropod diversity and unveil seasonal patterns of variation in the southern Atlantic Forest. PloS one 17: e0267390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267390
  • Bush A, Compson ZG, Monk WA, Porter TM, Steeves R, Emilson E, Gagne N, Hajibabaei M, Roy M, Baird DJ (2019) Studying ecosystems with DNA metabarcoding: lessons from biomonitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7: 434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00434
  • Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP (2016) DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature methods 13: 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869
  • Carter JL, Resh VH, Rosenberg DM, Reynoldson TB, Ziglio G, Siligardi M, Flaim G (2006) Biomonitoring in North American rivers: a comparison of methods used for benthic macroinvertebrates in Canada and the United States. Biological monitoring of rivers: applications and perspectives: 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470863781.ch11
  • Castello L, Macedo MN (2016) Large‐scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems. Global change biology 22: 990–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13173
  • Chang F-H, Lawrence JE, Rios-Touma B, Resh VH (2014) Tolerance values of benthic macroinvertebrates for stream biomonitoring: assessment of assumptions underlying scoring systems worldwide. Environmental monitoring and assessment 186: 2135–2149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3523-6
  • Chua PY, Bourlat SJ, Ferguson C, Korlevic P, Zhao L, Ekrem T, Meier R, Lawniczak MK (2023) Future of DNA-based insect monitoring. Trends in Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2023.02.012
  • Corrêa CC, Gil-Azevedo LH (2018) Family Dixidae. Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. Elsevier, 747–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804223-6.00035-4
  • Curry CJ, Gibson JF, Shokralla S, Hajibabaei M, Baird DJ (2018) Identifying North American freshwater invertebrates using DNA barcodes: are existing COI sequence libraries fit for purpose? Freshwater Science 37: 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1086/696613
  • da Silva FL, Pinho LC, Wiedenbrug S, Dantas GP, Siri A, Andersen T, Trivinho-Strixino S (2018) Family chironomidae. Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. Elsevier, 661–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804223-6.00031-7
  • De León LF, Cornejo A, Gavilán RG, Aguilar C (2020) Hidden biodiversity in Neotropical streams: DNA barcoding uncovers high endemicity of freshwater macroinvertebrates at small spatial scales. PLoS One 15: e0231683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231683
  • de Santana CD, Parenti LR, Dillman CB, Coddington JA, Bastos DA, Baldwin CC, Zuanon J, Torrente-Vilara G, Covain R, Menezes NA (2021) The critical role of natural history museums in advancing eDNA for biodiversity studies: a case study with Amazonian fishes. Scientific Reports 11: 18159. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97128-3
  • Domínguez E, Fernández HR (2009) Macroinvertebrados bentónicos sudamericanos. Sistemática y biología. Fundación Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina, 656 pp.
  • Duarte S, Leite BR, Feio MJ, Costa FO, Filipe AF (2021) Integration of DNA-based approaches in aquatic ecological assessment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Water 13: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030331
  • Elbrecht V, Vamos EE, Meissner K, Aroviita J, Leese F (2017) Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding‐based macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 1265–1275. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12789
  • Emilson CE, Thompson DG, Venier LA, Porter TM, Swystun T, Chartrand D, Capell S, Hajibabaei M (2017) DNA metabarcoding and morphological macroinvertebrate metrics reveal the same changes in boreal watersheds across an environmental gradient. Scientific reports 7: 12777. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13157-x
  • Encalada AC, Guayasamin JM, Suárez E, Mena CF, Lessmann J, Sampedro C, Martínez PE, Ochoa-Herrera V, Swing K, Celinšćak M, Schreckinger J, Vieira J, Tapia A, Serrano C, Barragán K, Andrade S, Alexiades A, Troya MJ (2019) Los ríos de las cuencas Andino-Amazónicas: Herramientas y guía de invertebrados para el diseño efectivo de programas de monitoreo. Trama Editores, Quito, Ecuador, 224 pp.
  • Fernández S, Rodríguez S, Martínez JL, Borrell YJ, Ardura A, García-Vázquez E (2018) Evaluating freshwater macroinvertebrates from eDNA metabarcoding: A river Nalón case study. PLoS One 13: e0201741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201741
  • Furse M, Wright J, Armitage P, Moss D (1981) An appraisal of pond-net samples for biological monitoring of lotic macro-invertebrates. Water Research 15: 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(81)90160-3
  • Fusari LM, Dantas GP, Pinho LC (2018) Order Diptera. Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. Elsevier, 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804223-6.00029-9
  • Gill B, Kondratieff B, Casner K, Encalada A, Flecker A, Gannon D, Ghalambor C, Guayasamin J, Poff N, Simmons M (2016) Cryptic species diversity reveals biogeographic support for the 'mountain passes are higher in the tropics' hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283: 20160553. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0553
  • Gleason JE, Elbrecht V, Braukmann TW, Hanner RH, Cottenie K (2021) Assessment of stream macroinvertebrate communities with eDNA is not congruent with tissue‐based metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 30: 3239–3251. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15597
  • Hadi SI, Santana H, Brunale PP, Gomes TG, Oliveira MD, Matthiensen A, Oliveira ME, Silva FC, Brasil BS (2016) DNA barcoding green microalgae isolated from neotropical inland waters. PloS one 11: e0149284. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149284
  • Hajibabaei M, Porter TM, Robinson CV, Baird DJ, Shokralla S, Wright MT (2019) Watered-down biodiversity? A comparison of metabarcoding results from DNA extracted from matched water and bulk tissue biomonitoring samples. PloS one 14: e0225409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225409
  • Hall M, Beiko RG (2018) 16S rRNA gene analysis with QIIME2. Microbiome analysis: methods and protocols: 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8728-3_8
  • Hamada N, Thorp JH, Rogers DC (2018) Thorp and Covich's freshwater invertebrates: Volume 3: Keys to neotropical Hexapoda. Academic press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804223-6.00001-9
  • Hauer FR, Resh VH (2017) Macroinvertebrates. Methods in Stream Ecology, Volume 1. Elsevier, 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416558-8.00015-9
  • Hering D, Borja A, Jones JI, Pont D, Boets P, Bouchez A, Bruce K (2018) Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. Water Research 138: 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003
  • Hodkinson ID, Jackson JK (2005) Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as bioindicators for environmental monitoring, with particular reference to mountain ecosystems. Environmental management 35: 649–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0211-x
  • Hopkins G, Freckleton R (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Cambridge University Press, 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943002002299
  • Jackson JK, Battle JM, White BP, Pilgrim EM, Stein ED, Miller PE, Sweeney BW (2014) Cryptic biodiversity in streams: a comparison of macroinvertebrate communities based on morphological and DNA barcode identifications. Freshwater Science 33: 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/675225
  • Keck F, Hürlemann S, Locher N, Stamm C, Deiner K, Altermatt F (2022a) A triad of kicknet sampling, eDNA metabarcoding, and predictive modeling to assess richness of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies in rivers. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6: 117–131. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.79351
  • Keck F, Blackman RC, Bossart R, Brantschen J, Couton M, Hürlemann S, Kirschner D, Locher N, Zhang H, Altermatt F (2022b) Meta‐analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment. Molecular Ecology 31: 1820–1835. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16364
  • Larano AD, Yaegashi S, Serrana JM, Ishitani N, Watanabe K (2023) Comparison of eDNA, bulk-sample metabarcoding, and morphological approaches: A case study of riverine benthic macroinvertebrate communities. bioRxiv: 2023–05.
  • Leese F, Sander M, Buchner D, Elbrecht V, Haase P, Zizka VM (2021) Improved freshwater macroinvertebrate detection from environmental DNA through minimized nontarget amplification. Environmental DNA 3: 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.177
  • Li F, Zhang Y, Altermatt F, Zhang X, Cai Y, Yang Z (2022) Gap analysis for DNA-based biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems in China. Ecological Indicators 137: 108732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108732
  • Lizarralde de Grosso M (2009) Diptera: generalidades. In: Domínguez E, Fernández HR (Eds) Macroinvertebrados bentónicos sudamericanos: sistemática y biología. Fundación Miguel Lillo, 341–364.
  • Lobo E, Callegaro V, Gómez N, Ector L (2004) Review of the use of microalgae in South America for monitoring rivers, with special reference to diatoms. Vie et Milieu/Life & Environment: 105–114.
  • Macher T-H, Beermann AJ, Arle J, Foerster J, Greyer M, Mora D, Koschorreck J, Rolauffs P, Rother A, Schüler S (2024) Fit for purpose? Evaluating benthic invertebrate DNA metabarcoding for ecological status class assessment in streams under the Water Framework Directive. Water Research: 122987.
  • Marques V, Milhau T, Albouy C, Dejean T, Manel S, Mouillot D, Juhel J (2021) GAPeDNA: Assessing and mapping global species gaps in genetic databases for eDNA metabarcoding. Diversity and Distributions 27: 1880–1892. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13142
  • Marshall JC, Steward AL, Harch BD (2006) Taxonomic resolution and quantification of freshwater macroinvertebrate samples from an Australian dryland river: the benefits and costs of using species abundance data. Hydrobiologia 572: 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-9007-0
  • Milan DT, Mendes IS, Damasceno JS, Teixeira DF, Sales NG, Carvalho DC (2020) New 12S metabarcoding primers for enhanced Neotropical freshwater fish biodiversity assessment. Scientific Reports 10: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74902-3
  • Moi DA, Teixeira-de-Mello F (2022) Cascading impacts of urbanization on multitrophic richness and biomass stock in neotropical streams. Science of The Total Environment 806: 151398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151398
  • Nichols SJ, Kefford BJ, Campbell CD, Bylemans J, Chandler E, Bray JP, Shackleton M, Robinson KL, Carew ME, Furlan EM (2020) Towards routine DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrates using bulk samples for freshwater bioassessment: Effects of debris and storage conditions on the recovery of target taxa. Freshwater Biology 65: 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13443
  • Paggi AC (2009) Diptera Chironomidae. In: Domínguez E, Fernández HR (Eds) Sistemática y biología. Fundación Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina, 383–409.
  • Pawlowski J, Kelly-Quinn M, Altermatt F, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Beja P, Boggero A, Borja A, Bouchez A, Cordier T, Domaizon I (2018) The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e) DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 637: 1295–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.002
  • Pelicice FM, Azevedo‐Santos VM, Vitule JR, Orsi ML, Lima Junior DP, Magalhães AL, Pompeu PS, Petrere Jr M, Agostinho AA (2017) Neotropical freshwater fishes imperilled by unsustainable policies. Fish and fisheries 18: 1119–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12228
  • Pereira‐da‐Conceicoa L, Elbrecht V, Hall A, Briscoe A, Barber‐James H, Price B (2021) Metabarcoding unsorted kick‐samples facilitates macroinvertebrate‐based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA. Environmental DNA 3: 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.116
  • Pfrender ME, Hawkins CP, Bagley M, Courtney GW, Creutzburg BR, Epler JH, Fend S, Ferrington Jr LC, Hartzell PL, Jackson S (2010) Assessing macroinvertebrate biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems: advances and challenges in DNA-based approaches. The Quarterly review of biology 85: 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/655118
  • Porter TM, Hajibabaei M (2018) Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing. PloS one 13: e0200177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200177
  • Ramírez A (2010) Capítulo 2: Métodos de recolección. Revista de Biología Tropical 58: 41–50.
  • Ratnasingham S, Hebert PD (2007) BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular ecology notes 7: 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
  • Revenga C, Campbell I, Abell R, De Villiers P, Bryer M (2005) Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1595
  • Ríos-Touma B, Ramírez A (2019) Multiple stressors in the Neotropical region: Environmental impacts in biodiversity hotspots. Multiple stressors in river ecosystems. Elsevier, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811713-2.00012-1
  • Ríos-Touma B, Acosta R, Prat N (2014) The Andean Biotic Index (ABI): revised tolerance to pollution values for macroinvertebrate families and index performance evaluation. Revista de biologia tropical 62: 249–273. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i0.15791
  • Rios-Touma B, Villamarín C, Jijón G, Checa J, Granda-Albuja G, Bonifaz E, Guerrero-Latorre L (2022) Aquatic biodiversity loss in Andean urban streams. Urban Ecosystems 25: 1619–1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01248-1
  • Robinson C, Baird D, Wright M, Porter T, Hartwig K, Hendriks E, Maclean L, Mallinson R, Monk W, Paquette C (2021) Combining DNA and people power for healthy rivers: Implementing the STREAM community-based approach for global freshwater monitoring. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19: 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.03.001
  • Roldán-Pérez G (2016) Los macroinvertebrados como bioindicadores de la calidad del agua: cuatro décadas de desarrollo en Colombia y Latinoamerica. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 40: 254–274. https://doi.org/10.18257/raccefyn.335
  • Ruiz-Picos R, Kohlmann B, Sedeño-Díaz J, López-López E (2017) Assessing ecological impairments in Neotropical rivers of Mexico: Calibration and validation of the Biomonitoring Working Party Index. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 14: 1835–1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1299-x
  • Sales NG, Wangensteen OS, Carvalho DC, Deiner K, Præbel K, Coscia I, McDevitt AD, Mariani S (2021) Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding. Science of the Total Environment 754: 142096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142096
  • Schenekar T, Schletterer M, Lecaudey LA, Weiss SJ (2020) Reference databases, primer choice, and assay sensitivity for environmental metabarcoding: Lessons learnt from a re‐evaluation of an eDNA fish assessment in the Volga headwaters. River Research and Applications 36: 1004–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3610
  • Schulz U, Martins-Junior H (2001) Astyanax fasciatus as bioindicator of water pollution of Rio dos Sinos, RS, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 61: 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842001000400010
  • Serrana JM, Miyake Y, Gamboa M, Watanabe K (2019) Comparison of DNA metabarcoding and morphological identification for stream macroinvertebrate biodiversity assessment and monitoring. Ecological Indicators 101: 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.02.008
  • Shelton AO, Gold ZJ, Jensen AJ, D′Agnese E, Andruszkiewicz Allan E, Van Cise A, Gallego R, Ramón‐Laca A, Garber‐Yonts M, Parsons K (2023) Toward quantitative metabarcoding. Ecology 104: e3906. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3906
  • Shirazi S, Meyer R, Shapiro B (2021) Revisiting the effect of PCR replication and sequencing depth on biodiversity metrics in environmental DNA metabarcoding. Ecology and Evolution 11(22): 15766–15779. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8239
  • Thomsen PF, Willerslev E (2015) Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological conservation 183: 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019
  • Vamos EE, Elbrecht V, Leese F (2017) Short COI markers for freshwater macroinvertebrate metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 1:e14625 https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.1.14625
  • Venter HJ, Bezuidenhout CC (2016) DNA-based identification of aquatic invertebrates-useful in the South African context? South African Journal of Science 112: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150444
  • Villamarín C, Villamarín-Cortez S, Salcido D-M, Herrera-Madrid M, Ríos-Touma B (2021) Drivers of diversity and altitudinal distribution of chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) in the Ecuadorian Andes. Revista de Biología Tropical 69: 113–126. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v69i1.40964
  • Vimos-Lojano D, Hampel H, Vázquez RF, Martínez-Capel F (2020) Community structure and functional feeding groups of macroinvertebrates in pristine Andean streams under different vegetation cover. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 20: 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.04.004
  • Weigand H, Beermann AJ, Čiampor F, Costa FO, Csabai Z, Duarte S, Geiger MF, Grabowski M, Rimet F, Rulik B (2019) DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Science of the Total Environment 678: 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247
  • Wheeler QD, Raven PH, Wilson EO (2004) Taxonomy: Impediment or Expedient? Science 303: 285–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.303.5656.285
  • Zinger L, Donald J, Brosse S, Gonzalez MA, Iribar A, Leroy C, Murienne J, Orivel J, Schimann H, Taberlet P (2020) Advances and prospects of environmental DNA in neotropical rainforests. Advances in ecological research 62: 331–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.01.001